Leave a Comment Sagesse
The out-of-touch choir to which Tim Pawlenty preaches
January 13, 2011
By Adam Bink
Here’s Tim Pawlenty on Bryan Fischer’s radio show:
FISCHER: We just saw the ban on homosexual service in the military repealed, overturned. Conservatives will be working over the next couple of years to see that that ban is reinstated. If you become president in 2012, will you work to reinstate the prohibition on open homosexual service in the military? Would you sign such a prohibition if it got to your desk?
PAWLENTY: Bryan, I have been a public and repeat supporter of maintaining Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. There’s a lot of reasons for that, but if you look at how the combat commanders and the combat units feel about it, the results of those kinds of surveys were different than the ones that were mostly reported in the newspaper and that is something I think we need to pay attention to. But I have been a public supporter of maintaining Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and I would support reinstating it as well.
Wow. The numbers put public support for real in the mid-70s- maybe higher, now that the bill is signed. Pawlenty is talking to the hardest of hardcore. And once you dig down into people who actually give a crap about the issue enough to prioritize it in their selection of a presidential candidate, you really get into the fringiest of fringe. How big is that choir to which he preaches? He must think that’s in the Iowa caucus, and it’s true there is a solid element of that in the state, but I wonder how much it offsets with people who think Pawlenty is plainly out-of-touch.
And on the public policy aspects of it, what are you going to do in the year 2013, President Tim, fire scores of gay and lesbian servicemembers who came out under the revised regulations?
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
43 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Ann S. | January 13, 2011 at 8:55 am
Pawlenty had the good sense to try to distance himself from Palin, but I don't yet see him as a serious contender for the presidency.
But I've been wrong before.
2.
Richard A. Jernigan | January 13, 2011 at 9:06 am
Or maybe Tim Pawlenty does not want to be president as much as he claims he wants to be. After all, this is probably the best way to shoot his political career that he could have found.
3.
Rhie | January 13, 2011 at 9:13 am
Watching
4.
Ray in MA | January 13, 2011 at 9:25 am
Amazing how these people and organizations have no empathy for fellow Americans and feel free to tare apart their lives.
5.
Ronnie | January 13, 2011 at 9:26 am
Yup….so sad…. : / …..Ronnie
6.
Lesbians Love Boies | January 13, 2011 at 9:27 am
Yes – he just lost potential voters.
7.
nightshayde | January 13, 2011 at 9:52 am
I really don't feel like thinking about icky politicians & icky NOMbies right now.
Instead, I'm thinking about cake. Beautiful rainbow cake. I stumbled across this online about 1/2 hour ago & may need to make it or something very much like it very soon.
http://whisk-kid.blogspot.com/2009/08/say-it-with…
Would that make an awesome wedding cake for a GLBT wedding, or what?!
8.
JonT | January 13, 2011 at 9:53 am
☮
9.
Richard A. Jernigan | January 13, 2011 at 10:10 am
Or a birthday cake, anniversary cake, or any other celebration cake you need.
10.
Casey | January 13, 2011 at 10:27 am
Maybe we can have one delivered to Pawlenty for his birthday.
11.
nightshayde | January 13, 2011 at 10:30 am
I may have to make one just to celebrate my obsession with rainbows. Making them in cupcake form would likely be easier, though – perhaps I'll try it that way.
12.
Peterplumber | January 13, 2011 at 10:48 am
I can't understand how and why people want to repeal legislation which was recently enacted. If they couldn't stop the legislation from becoming law in the first place, what makes them think the general public wants repeal?
Also, what a freaking waste of time & money to put the legislation thru, only to have someone try to get it repealed. In the case of DADT, let's say this guy does become president in 2012, and directs congress to put out a bill aimed at repeal. By that time, DADT will be dead & buried, and all the military manuals will have been re-written and all the active duty soldiers & sailors will have been retrained. Why bother to change it again at that point?
I swear, these right wingers are totally unrealistic.
13.
Paul in Minneapolis | January 13, 2011 at 11:03 am
I don't think we'll have to worry about a T-Paw presidency. He wouldn't even carry his home state of Minnesota! Both of his elections as governor were won by plurality, not majority — meaning that more people voted against him than for him!
His "no new taxes" pledge has been devastating to Minnesota. He used accounting gimmicks, dipped into the state's rainy day fund (which no longer exists, thanks to him) and raided the money the state received as a settlement from the tobacco industry to balance the books. He cut funding to cities so that they were forced to raise property taxes to pay for essential services like police and fire protection (but because it was cities, not he, who raised taxes, he was able to claim that he honored his pledge).
Our infrastructure literally crumbled under his watch; who can forget the collapse of the I-35W bridge over the Mississippi River? That bridge collapse was the only reason a tax increase was passed — our legislature overrode Pawlenty's veto of a gasoline tax increase (that had remained stagnant for over 20 years) so that we could at least try to catch up repairing our roads and bridges. (BTW, the new bridge is beautiful; I seldom have a need to cross it, but I always think about the victims of the collapse when I do.)
Despite his claims that he was creating a climate favorable for business, Pawlenty's policies did little to attract new business to Minnesota. And now with thousands unemployed thanks to the "Great Recession," tax revenues are way down.
The result? Tim Pawlenty left office last week leaving the state with a $6.2 billion deficit. Our state constitution mandates a balanced budget — who knows if our new Republican-controlled (both houses, alas) legislature will cooperate with our new Democratic governor, Mark Dayton, to balance it — or if Dayton will get to exercise his line-item veto authority (as Pawlenty himself did) to balance the budget.
Tim Pawlenty is a "my way or the highway" kind of guy. His extreme positions, policy myopia, arrogance and unwillingness to compromise — not to mention the mess he left behind once he left the governorship here in Minnesota — will make him unappealing to too many voters, which renders him unelectable. Don't let his preening, squawking and book tours fool you; once people look under his pretty veneer, they'll dismiss him.
Oh, and as Adam notes, T-Paw is no friend of the GLBT community, either! "Out-of-touch" describes Pawlenty perfectly!
14.
Sagesse | January 13, 2011 at 11:11 am
Scribing to read later. Give me a hint… how big is this choir?
15.
Josh | January 13, 2011 at 11:15 am
I hope the best gop candidate supports views like this. I hope they go hard-core to the right and lose just as hard. gop, nom, etc, each quote the stats they think support their position. They lie which shows their true cino colors. They talk about public support of marriage discrimination, yet they won't mention that for DADT. They also never mention the stat that I think is most important. The one that says how positive soldiers who have actually served with a gay person were about the repeal. Those who know a gay person stated how little their orientation has on unit cohesion, etc.
16.
Richard A. Jernigan | January 13, 2011 at 11:19 am
From what I understand, it is probably about as big as the membership of WBC.
17.
Manilow | January 13, 2011 at 11:27 am
Wasn't there a study recently that more servicemen are being kicked out for not passing their endurance/athletic tests? Shouldn't we focus on that for combat readiness? That is, of course, if combat readiness is REALLY what T-Paw is truly worried about…
18.
Carpool Cookie | January 13, 2011 at 11:29 am
You could make a yummy icecream French bombe using multicolored sherbets or ice creams. You pack ice cream into a big bowl in sections, then (somehow) loosen it onto a platter and frost it with a glaze (melted chocolate is of course best) then refreeze…it would be like a big bon bon, the kind you could buy at movie theaters that are now seemingly GONE. (I think you got 4 little ones per box.) You can turn the bombe out onto a round sheet cake, too. (If you frost the cake and ice cream concoction with meringue and bown it quickly, it becomes a Baked Alaska…though I am not a big meringue fan.)
19.
Carpool Cookie | January 13, 2011 at 11:32 am
The whole reason they lowered the standards for athletic endurance (and also allowed convicted felons to enlist!) is because they were losing troops as gays and lesbians were fired.
20.
nightshayde | January 13, 2011 at 11:47 am
*sigh* Now I'm hungry!
21.
nightshayde | January 13, 2011 at 11:49 am
I'm sure he knows there's no way in Hades it would happen — just as anyone who knows anything about government knows that it's next to impossible to get a controversial constitutional amendment (US Constitution, anyway) passed.
The politicians don't have to believe it will happen. They know that merely saying it "should" happen will garner votes from the lunatic fringe. They just hope they don't lose votes from the more educated middle — the people who might just brush off such extremist statements, knowing they'll never come to fruition.
22.
nightshayde | January 13, 2011 at 11:49 am
I'm guessing they sing off-key.
23.
Richard A. Jernigan | January 13, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Welcome to the club on that one, Nightshayde!
24.
Richard A. Jernigan | January 13, 2011 at 12:28 pm
And sound like fingernails on chalkboard! (I know, I know–I'm giving away my age, again! (48 in March, and proud to have made it this far!))
25.
Michael | January 13, 2011 at 12:47 pm
The real question is: Do you think homosexuality should be criminalized and subject to execution? Let's see if shrill anti-gay activist Pawlenty is as honest answering that question as he was answering this one. Let these cowards stand up and say what they really think so young people see it and continue moving away from them in droves.
26.
Mackenzie | January 13, 2011 at 12:50 pm
I am sure you all have already seen this, but here is that POC that NOM ran as an ad in RI.
27.
Mackenzie | January 13, 2011 at 12:50 pm
it would help if I actually put it on here. LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP7B8eycdBU&ms…
28.
Steve | January 13, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Don't forget thousands of people who will have come out. No way to put them back into the closet.
29.
Straight Ally #3008 | January 13, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Lunatic Fringe
I know you're out there
You're in hiding
And you hold your meetings
We can hear you coming
We know what you're after
We're wise to you this time
We won't let you kill the laughter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTFVMMCwsss
30.
Michelle Evans | January 13, 2011 at 1:50 pm
As Rachel Maddow always says when she talks about Pawlenty: "Snore…"
31.
Leo | January 13, 2011 at 1:57 pm
<cite>…but if you look at how the combat commanders and the combat units feel about it…</cite>
Question that wasn't asked: "Are you going to look at the effects of the repeal in practice and only support reinstating DADT if military readiness decreases, or is that just a pretext?"
32.
Bob | January 13, 2011 at 2:14 pm
apologies, but I can't stop thinking about anonygrls accusations the other day, that I gave up my liberty for false security,,,,,
I would just like to suggest, a goggle search on wickepdia re liberty,,, and for all of us to do some soul searching about our liberties,,,, and how free we really are,,,,
for some reason I am able to experience and express my own personal liberty and freedom of expression, both in the public square, and in my own personal thoughts , in a way that even I don't fully comprehend,,,, until someone challenged me to question it….
the liberties that rainbow people in some countries are experiencing are mind boggling, in comparison to others,,,
I would like to suggest DADT as an example of a whole group of LGBT people who have sacrificed personal liberties in exchange for job security,,,,
and here we are in the process of claiming those liberties, while at the same time imagining them being withdrawn again,,,, personally I don't thnk liberty works that way,,, one must free themselves in their own mind first,,,, and once that is achieved, no one, can take it away,,, we may be restrained,,, we may be stopped from expressing it in the public square, but just read all those letters written from jail cells, about liberty and freedom…..
the security comes from knowing that like all freedom fighters before, if one has to , they will just fight again, liberty is a basic human right,,, one of the most important being to marry the person of your choosing,,,, right now Americans are bravely fighting for that liberty,,,, a hudge portion of U.S. citizens presently have that liberty curtailed by heterosexuals,,,,,
another liberty is the freedom to choose appropriate health care,, and for some the choice to have organ transpllants, and even the right to surgery for transgendered people,,,, how many U.S. citizens enjoy that liberty…….
talk to immigrants and ask them about their liberty, and how it's presently curtailed
and also look at the ways we seek to curtail the liberties of bullies,, have we not been advocating anti bullying programs, and would those not curtail the free speech of bullies,,,,,
talk to the muslims who wish to enjoy their liberty in bulilding a place of worship in a place of thier choosing,,, and how their liberties are curtailed…
liberty involves much more than the right to free speech,,,
liberty is an inate human characteristic that one is born with, it wants to be recognized and valued inside each of us, we as humans are called to value it above anything, even above our country,,, we've been brainwashed into thinking it's honorable to sacrifice our liberties for our country,,,, that is the mind control,,,,which we are trying to free ourselves from free speech is an offspring of true liberty,,, and without liberty it's useless,,,,, look inside,,,, are we honoring ourselves,,,,
these basic liberties are calling out to us and demand their due,,, they are the same for people everywhere, those who experience them and honor them hold out hope , and beckon those who are presently grappling with the reality of liberty,,, liberty only seeks it's equal in the other,,, liberty cannot hurt or harm another,,,,
in achieving our own liberty and living it, we free our captors,,, who as yet have not percieved their own liberty, destiny calls,,,,,
33.
Peterplumber | January 13, 2011 at 2:24 pm
They just hope they don’t lose votes from the more educated middle — the people who might just brush off such extremist statements, knowing they’ll never come to fruition.
I think you hit the nail on the head there. Education & enlightment go hand in hand. Lack of education may leave you in the dark ages.
34.
Michael Herman | January 13, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Unfortunately, Anti-Freedom, Anti-Constituion bigots like that will always be around, so we need to do all we can to see that our Constitution is protected from far-right attacks on our freedom.
I recently got married to my wife, but I just couldn't feel excited about it. Instead, I felt guilty, because I'm free to marry, but many of my friends are denied this basic right. I will be sure to use my "married" status to convince others that gay marriage does NOT affect straight marriage in any way, shape, or form.
35.
AB | January 13, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Help me please!
I am working on my PhD in political science. I study politics of LGBT rights, drug regulation, and partisan political participation. The lattermost is because I am interested in why people believe what they do and use certain specific labels to describe that.
So, coming from my specific point-of-view, here is what I don’t understand:
This is what the good governor said recently (this is from the Daily Show on January 12):
Pawlenty said in defending violent rhetoric:
“I think there’s a lot of us in the conservative movement that views government—whether it is personalized to Barack Obama or anyone else—as government crowds into more space that used to be for individuals, that used to be for private markets, that used to be for charity, that used to be for entrepreneurial activities, that used to be for faith organizations, and they push in and say ‘you know, we’ll do that now.’ And they take over one more piece that used to be reserved for, say, individuals. There’s a lot of us who say that feels kind of like government stepping on us, pushing us to the side…. And it sometimes happens very incrementally.”
So, what I do not understand is this: if that is what the newest, latest, most conservative person in America claims to be the Conservative mantra, then how is it that each and every Conservative in America is not standing squarely behind Ted Olson and David Boies right at this moment? How can that belief possibly be squared with their belief on same-sex marriage?
Let’s face it: there is NOTHING in life that is more personal (“…intimate to the degree of being sacred…” in fact) than the choice of whom to marry and to start a family with. And Pawlenty, who wants small government, wants the government to be big enough to say that individuals who are born with love for specific persons, should have the possibility of starting a loving, caring family unit, with the person they love, pulled out from under them is entirely inconsistent with conservatism as couched by Pawlenty, or—for that matter—Cooper or Gallagher.
In thinking about this issue, and answering this post with whatever thoughts you might have of how this cognitive dissonance is avoided, please be reminded that I am familiar with the talking points and false justifications, and any rational person must know that they are unpersuasive.
So, really, anyone who thinks about this and can answer, please help me think through this, I am utterly at a loss: how on Earth, could a person as bright and accomplished as Tim Pawlenty—at their most visceral and personal moments—possibly reconcile these two views (which are so completely at odds with each other), especially where the livelihood, happiness, and liberty of good Americans—particularly innocent children—are being so routinely robbed?
36.
Richard A. Jernigan | January 13, 2011 at 5:33 pm
Very simply, they are confusing fiscal conservativism with social conservativsim. They are trying to say that being a fiscal conservative is the same as being a social conservative. They think that it is the number of laws on the books that determines the size of the government. They are willfully ignoring the fact that so long as marriage discrimination exists, that so long as they try to fordce one particular view of religion into the political sphere, that they are in fact creating the big government that they claim to abhor. And they will do this so long as it pays money in the form of campaign contributions.
37.
Don in Texas | January 13, 2011 at 5:34 pm
There must be a balance between liberty and order in our society, as explained at American Government.
Regarding the "liberty" of bullies, even John Stuart Mill whose essay "On Liberty" is seminal, agrees that anyone's liberty must end when it infringes on the rights of others.
38.
Sagesse | January 13, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Justice Department Defends The Defense Of Marriage Act
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01…
39.
anonygrl | January 13, 2011 at 11:52 pm
I absolutely did not mean that as an attack Bob. I was acknowledging that we hold differing STANDARDS is all.
I am not even claiming that my standard is BETTER than yours… simply that it is mine.
I apologize if you took it as an attack, and I don't mean to imply that there are not benefits to the laws about hate speech in Canada. In fact, there are benefits to even more restrictions. A country that does not allow any dissention at all (not yours, just a hypothetical for a moment) can enjoy the safest, most pleasant and cooperative society, I just don't care for the cost. And I know there are drawbacks to where WE fall on this spectrum as well.
I simply prefer it where we fall.
40.
anonygrl | January 14, 2011 at 12:05 am
The "somehow" for loosening it is pretty simple. First invert the bowl on a serving platter. Take a clean washcloth or sponge, run it in hot water and wring it out, then wipe the outside of the bowl down to warm it up slightly. Tap or jiggle the bowl a little as you go, and the bombe will plop right out onto your platter (or cake pan or whatever).
A hint. After packing the ice cream or sherbert in the bowl, you want to return it to the freezer for a while to make sure it is VERY hard before you turn it out of the bowl, or you will end up with a very tasty pile of mushy ice cream.
41.
anonygrl | January 14, 2011 at 12:36 am
CAN you repeal a repeal? Or would you have to enact new legislation at that point?
Just curious.
42.
anonygrl | January 14, 2011 at 12:47 am
While I appreciate that you care (very much appreciate!!!!), please, enjoy the fact that you can marry. Marriage should be a joyful experience, and you should know that those of us who cannot marry yet don't BEGRUDGE the fact that you can, we celebrate it, we just wish that everyone who wanted to could join you there. And one day soon, we will.
So, congratulations on your recent nuptials, and may you enjoy a long and happy life together!
43.
anonygrl | January 14, 2011 at 1:00 am
When a member of the GOP talks about small government, he is talking about financial legislation; deregulating industry, removing any environmental protections that cost businesses money, cutting taxes, removing government subsidized assistance programs and such. However, when it comes to social issues, marriage, abortion, stem cell research, homosexuals in the military, and so on, conservatives are all about laying down laws.
Liberals are quite the opposite.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.